Mr. Speaker, I would like to table an important petition today on behalf of over 100 members of the United Church of Canada Conference of Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario. These petitioners are very concerned with the government's increasingly frequent decisions to deny visitor visas for people who come to Canada, including as part of development work. Members of the United Church conference travelled to their international development mission in Zambia and, as part of that, were to host 10 Zambians here for educational and cultural purposes. These visas were denied.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to implement measures to ensure Canada continues to be globally engaged and responsive in its role of peacekeeping and international development.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling for a national public transit strategy.

As members know, the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges has experienced strong growth over the past 15 years. There are pressing public transit needs.

The petitioners point out that Canada is the only member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have a national public transit strategy and that the needs are pressing.

The first one deals with electoral fraud. The petitioners are from the Ottawa region. They demand that the Prime Minister set up an independent investigation to get to the truth about who did what during the last election and find the person or persons responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I am also presenting a petition on behalf of residents of Nelson, Rossland and Victoria, British Columbia who are calling on the government to cease and desist from taking a position on the Enbridge project in advance of the conclusion of the assessment. They ask for a full and fair assessment, a commitment that has already been violated by the egregious destruction of environmental protection in the 2012 budget.

With regard to the government’s policy on seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad: (a) under what circumstances will the government seek clemency; (b) when was the current policy adopted; (c) who proposed the current policy; and (d) how was it adopted?

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), a Canadian citizen facing the prospect of the death penalty, or an authorized representative acting on his or her behalf, may apply to the Government of Canada for clemency intervention. Requests for clemency are assessed on a case-by-case basis using criteria based on Canadian values and international standards. A non-exhaustive list of criteria that may be taken into consideration is posted on the website of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: http://www.voyage.gc.ca/documents/clemency_clemence-eng.asp.

In response to (b), (c), and (d), as has been previously reported, the Government of Canada adopted and has applied the current clemency policy since July 2009.

With respect to prosecutions for hate speech under sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code: (a) from January 1, 2002, to February 15, 2012, how many such requests for prosecution has the Attorney General received; (b) how many of these requests were acted upon; (c) how many prosecutions were commenced, and in which years; and (d) what are the Attorney General’s criteria for assessing cases under these sections?

Rob NicholsonConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, PPSC, was created on December 12, 2006. The PPSC is responsible for prosecuting offences under federal jurisdiction. With respect to most Criminal Code offences, including hate speech, the PPSC is responsible for prosecuting these only in the three northern territories.

The PPSC has not received any requests for hate speech prosecutions under sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code since its creation.

What is the total amount of government funding allocated to the constituency of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel between fiscal year 2007-2008 and the last fiscal year, broken down by: (a) department or agency; (b) initiative or program; (c) year; (d) amount; and (e) recipient?

With regard to websites accessed on the personal departmental desktop computers, laptop computers, mobile phones, tablet computers, or other internet-enabled devices issued to the Minister of Justice and to the Minister of Public Safety: (a) what are the URLs of all websites accessed on said devices between 12:01 a.m. on February 1, 2012, and 12:01 a.m. on February 14, 2012 (all dates and times inclusive), listed by ministry; and (b) at what times were those websites accessed, listed by ministry?

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, you interrupted the statement that was being presented by the member for Mississauga—Brampton South. As there is some confusion, I am asking for some indication from the Chair as to how you intend to handle this.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last week the member for Toronto—Danforth had raised a point of order with regard to the statement, again presented by the same member on the government side, in terms of the nature of the statement being a personal attack on him, which is a violation of the long-standing tradition of this House and any number of Houses in the Westminster system, and more specifically, it is in violation of the rulings of your predecessor, Mr. Milliken in the last Parliament where he ruled that personal attacks against other members during the course of an S. O. 31 statement is improper.

We are not clear, Mr. Speaker, whether in fact, by cutting her off today, you were expressing your intent as to your ruling or when we might expect a determination from you on the point of order that was raised by the member for Toronto—Danforth last week.

Eve AdamsConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not believe that citing somebody's record, philosophical stance, policy stance or facts that are a matter of record is an attack on an individual.

it is something that gentleman has authored. He wrote a report that was cited in court. The Court of Appeal dismissed his report as methodologically unsound and tainted by ideology. I think that is fair game to cite here in the chamber.

If that gentleman is no longer proud of his stance, if he no longer feels as though he was correct in the report that he authored or if he or his party is somehow embarrassed by his position, then perhaps he could stand and apologize.

I appreciate the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raising this. I was here in the previous Parliament when my predecessor attempted to bring some kind of cohesive parameters as to what would be acceptable during S. O. 31s.

Members are granted a great deal of latitude on the type of things they are allowed to talk about during their statements. Some guidelines have existed and some have been enforced at various times and some have not been. For the House, especially in this Parliament, what may help members is, if they are referencing a particular individual, that the bar would be higher during S. O. 31s than it might be during question period or during the normal course of debate.

As my predecessor mentioned, statements by members is a time of the day when it is impossible for a member who has been referenced to respond. This is different from question period and it is different from other types of debate so, as previous Speakers have done, the Chair will look at a few things, such the nature of the words being used, as well as the reaction that it provokes. Members are free to take issue with statements or positions that other members have expressed and can talk about their own personal views on that or what the party might think in terms of ideas. However, when they are going to touch on these things in a very personal way, they need to choose their words very carefully and the tone and the reaction will be examined by the Chair.

I hope that helps. I do not think there is a formula. I do not think we can write down a mathematical equation as to what will be ruled in order or out of order but if all members took it upon themselves, if they are going to make reference to other members to highlight what it was that was said, that it not be done in a personal way. The House would appreciate it and then it would be easier for the Chair to determine what the nature is.

I am prepared to go back and look more closely at what the member for Mississauga—Brampton South said during her S. O. 31. As I heard it, it certainly did provoke a reaction and it seemed to assign some kind of motive to the member's alleged comments. I will go back and look at it if she feels she should not have been cut off. However, at the time it did seem to be causing quite a lot of disruption and it did seem to me to be worth stepping in to move on to the next one. I will come back to the House if necessary on that particular one.

I hope that answers the member for Windsor—Tecumseh's question in a more general format.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, in particular when you are looking at today's statement, to take into account the statement that was made last Thursday. How can a member possibly call someone a hug-a-thug and say that is about his philosophical underpinnings or about a policy issue? It is not. It is a personal attack. It is name-calling at its basest level. Therefore, I would ask you to look at both the statements, not just the one today.